Post-RC1 merging criteria (was Re: [PULL] cleanups)

[Keith Packard]

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:22:50 -0700, Jamey Sharp <jamey at minilop.net> wrote:

> Three months does feel like a
> long time to stall development on master, though, given how
> attention-starved this code already is. I'd prefer a three-month total
> release cycle, assuming a willing release manager.

Note that 1.9 is currently scheduled to come out in mid August, so we've
only got two months to go, but still, it does seem like a bit of delay.

Running a shorter release schedule would be fine with me, but as we
don't have any significant work happening in other trees, several people
have suggested that we'd get into a permanent 'release freeze' mode with
very limited space in the schedule for developing, testing and
integrating new work.

> Perhaps we need an xserver-next tree

I know I don't have the bandwidth to manage this as well as the 1.9
server release, perhaps someone else would? If not, I wonder if we
couldn't have either a separate tree or just a separate branch where
people were pushing these kinds of changes by themselves, at least
they'd be all ready to merge once 1.9 ships.

-- 
keith.packard at intel.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/attachments/20100619/d7f37d4e/attachment.pgp>